Hi All,
apparently the contrib/check-MAINTAINERS.py script requires that surnames in
the MAINTAINERS file are ordered in a way that any uppercase letter < any
lowercase letter. Do we want that?
If we do require that, then we have to move Somya AR's name to the start of the
Write After Approval s
Dear GCC Gurus,
We are compiling a GCC using "pre-existing" GCC and
we want to have control over the order of the system directories that are
searched
particularly we want /usr/include to be searched before others. We are not
in a position to keep adding -I/usr/include to our bui
Hello,
I would like to present our offer, which includes a wide range of springs made
from patented wire with diameters from 0.2 to 16.0 mm, as well as stainless
spring wires.
We manufacture not only traditional compression and extension springs, but also
torsion springs, shaped springs, disc
I_ONLY_INNERMOST) to traverse the loops in my
> > pass to obtain the loop.
> >
> > I found that the order of traversal and the order of actual
> > instruction execution will be different.
> >
> > Sometimes it's the exact opposite, and sometimes it's sequen
> Am 25.09.2023 um 04:53 schrieb Hanke Zhang via Gcc :
>
> Hi, I have recently been working on loops in gcc, and I have some
> questions about the loop traversal.
>
> I use loops_list(cfun, LI_ONLY_INNERMOST) to traverse the loops in my
> pass to obtain the loop.
>
Hi, I have recently been working on loops in gcc, and I have some
questions about the loop traversal.
I use loops_list(cfun, LI_ONLY_INNERMOST) to traverse the loops in my
pass to obtain the loop.
I found that the order of traversal and the order of actual
instruction execution will be different
he key is the symtab_node* is probably not a good idea as a
> specific version of the function might be dropped and in that case I
> may be dropping information for all cases.
>
> This brings me to the field "order" in symtab_node. Is this field
> constant through the linkin
This brings me to the field "order" in symtab_node. Is this field
constant through the linking process and can it be used to
differentiate between different versions of the same function?
Thanks!
I've invited you to fill out the following form:
Re: Order
To fill it out, visit:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdvTz-uNrwzYEDRle3NKO8L0HG7h5hasmZNnR2EPGRKB8tXPQ/viewform?vc=0&c=0&w=1&flr=0&usp=mail_form_link
I've invited you to fill out a form:
Google
> Would you folks consider this as a GCC bug? Do you folks see any issue in
> the CLANG approach? Is there a way (any switch) in gcc which would reverse
> the order of ‘setting %rbp’ vs ‘stack alignment code’ (like CLANG)?
How does Clang align the frame pointer? What happens if the func
Hi,
I was looking at the implementation of mstackalign in gcc (O2/O3) and it
looks like we generate code for mstackalign (i.e. generate instructions for
stack alignment) before pushing $rbp to stack/setting $rbp. In the
epilogue, we do the same in reverse order.
some_routine
run the benchmark, then my fast __udivmodti4() from
<https://skanthak.homepage.t-online.de/integer.html#as-2>
and repeat.
The "slow" __udivmodti4() should be slightly faster than your
current implementation for AMD64, while the fast one almost
an order of magnitude...
<https://skanthak.h
<<< image/gif: EXCLUDED >>>
<<< image/gif: EXCLUDED >>>
Good Morning
We have attach our March order to this mail, confirm this order
by return mail and issue send Invoice Asap.
Thanks & Best Regards
May Lee
Know How International GmbH & Co. KG
Import
On 12 June 2018 at 06:49, 刘超杰 wrote:
> Hi:
> When I was using g++, I found a problem, maybe which is a bug or not.
This is the wrong mailing list for your question. Please use the
gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org list for help and questions about GCC.
> It is about the order of object files neede
Hi:
When I was using g++, I found a problem, maybe which is a bug or not. It is
about the order of object files needed to link, if you change the order of
files, the result is different. I can duplicate the problem, and I have write
an example, whose git address is:
https://github.com/Erician
On 7 October 2016 at 21:41, nicolas bouillot wrote:
> oops this works better:
> alias reversed_make='make 2>&1 >/dev/null | tac | egrep --color
> "\b(error|cpp|hpp)\b|$"'
Or just make 2>&1 | less
ot;\b(error|cpp|hpp)\b|$ "'
>
> Nicolas
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:23 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 15:08 -0400, nicolas bouillot wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Was wondering this could be a feature request ? Basically, this could
quest ? Basically, this could
>> be a GCC option to print compilation errors in a reversed order, i.e.
>> the first being printed last. This is because when compiling from the
>> terminal, it would avoid mouse scrolling all day in order to get the
>> first error.
>>
>&
On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 15:08 -0400, nicolas bouillot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Was wondering this could be a feature request ? Basically, this could
> be a GCC option to print compilation errors in a reversed order, i.e.
> the first being printed last. This is because when compiling from the
2016 12:09 PM
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: error printing in reversed order ?
Hi,
Was wondering this could be a feature request ? Basically, this could be a GCC
option to print compilation errors in a reversed order, i.e.
the first being printed last. This is because when compiling from the ter
Hi,
Was wondering this could be a feature request ? Basically, this could
be a GCC option to print compilation errors in a reversed order, i.e.
the first being printed last. This is because when compiling from the
terminal, it would avoid mouse scrolling all day in order to get the
first error
On 2016.08.01 at 18:16 +0800, lh mouse wrote:
> Hello GCC developers,
>
> Reading the ISO C++ standard,
> > 3.6.4 Termination [basic.start.term]
> > 3 If the completion of the initialization of an object with
> > static storage duration is sequenced before a call to std::atexit
> > (see , 18.5), t
Hello GCC developers,
Reading the ISO C++ standard,
> 3.6.4 Termination [basic.start.term]
> 3 If the completion of the initialization of an object with
> static storage duration is sequenced before a call to std::atexit
> (see , 18.5), the call to the function passed to std::atexit
> is sequenced
We thank you for spreading malware via Office VBA macros.
Sincerly,
Le 24/02/2016 12:07, Abigail Jones a écrit :
Please see attached
On 11/25/2015 01:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 11/24/2015 02:55 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 23/11/15 23:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified
ordering:
http://www
Hi,
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, David Brown wrote:
> That is all true - but if you have to pick an order that makes sense to
> users, especially of functions that are not varargs (i.e., most
> functions), then left-to-right is the only logical, natural order - at
> least for those of
On 25/11/15 15:47, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order of
>>> evaluat
On 11/25/2015 11:49 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/25/2015 06:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The motivating example in the paper suggests that many C++
programmers expect a left to right order of evaluation here
due to the commonality of constructs like chains of calls.
Sure, I often see
On 25 November 2015 at 19:38, wrote:
> I'm really wondering about this proposal. It seems that it could affect
> optimization. It also seems to be a precedent that may not be a good one to
> set. Consider the dozen or so "undefined behavior" examples in
> https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/u
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 11/24/2015 02:55 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 23/11/15 23:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
>>> of evaluation of subexpressions th
On 11/25/2015 06:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The motivating example in the paper suggests that many C++
> programmers expect a left to right order of evaluation here
> due to the commonality of constructs like chains of calls.
Sure, I often see
foo.bar(1).bar(2).bar(3), etc.
but do
On 11/24/2015 02:55 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 23/11/15 23:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0
Hi,
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order of
> > evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
> >
> &
On 11/23/2015 04:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.pdf
I agree with much of this, bu
> In addition, I don't see anything about C compatibility here. It
> would be very confusing, to say the least, if this were to be defined
> in C++ but not C.
Or at least they should get some form of guarantee that future C standards
will not introduce incompatible rules.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 23/11/15 23:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
> There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
> of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
>
> http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.pdf
>
> I
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order of
> evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
>
> http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.pdf
There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.pdf
I agree with much of this, but was concerned about the proposal to
d
clude ISL headers first. This
>>> order is not supported by GCC development and creates conflicts for
>>> types and definitions provided / overridden by GCC headers, especially
>>> system.h and its dependent headers like hwint.h.
>>>
>>> I presume that ISL
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Thanks David for reporting these problems.
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:31 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> (2) All of the graphite*.c files include ISL headers first. This
>> order is not supported by GCC development
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Sven Verdoolaege
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:14:47AM -0600, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:31 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>> > Sebastian,
>>> >
>>> > I have tried to build GC
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Sven Verdoolaege wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:14:47AM -0600, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:31 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> > Sebastian,
>> >
>> > I have tried to build GCC with Graphite and ISL on AIX and encountered
>> > two problems:
Thanks David for reporting these problems.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:31 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> (2) All of the graphite*.c files include ISL headers first. This
> order is not supported by GCC development and creates conflicts for
> types and definitions provided / overridden by GC
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:14:47AM -0600, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:31 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > Sebastian,
> >
> > I have tried to build GCC with Graphite and ISL on AIX and encountered
> > two problems:
> >
> > (1) isl/ctx.h
> >
> > typedef enum {
> > isl_stat_
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:31 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Sebastian,
>
> I have tried to build GCC with Graphite and ISL on AIX and encountered
> two problems:
>
> (1) isl/ctx.h
>
> typedef enum {
> isl_stat_error = -1,
> isl_stat_ok = 0,
> } isl_stat;
>
> GCC complains about the co
uld appear on all targets.
(2) All of the graphite*.c files include ISL headers first. This
order is not supported by GCC development and creates conflicts for
types and definitions provided / overridden by GCC headers, especially
system.h and its dependent headers like hwint.h.
I presume that I
> of the C++ memory model, so is invaluable for answering questions like
>> this.
>>
>> It shows that there is no sychronizes-with (shown as "sw")
>> relationship between the seq_cst store and the relaxed load for each
>> atomic object. There is a total order of
e relaxed load for each
atomic object. There is a total order of sequentially consistent
operations, but the loads are not sequentially consistent and do not
synchronize with the stores.
Thank you Jonathan, you are correct. I've changed the test to use
seq_cst on loads as well and also remov
The tool evaluates the possible executions according to a formal model
of the C++ memory model, so is invaluable for answering questions like
this.
It shows that there is no sychronizes-with (shown as "sw")
relationship between the seq_cst store and the relaxed load for each
atomic object. There is a total order of sequentially consistent
operations, but the loads are not sequentially consistent and do not
synchronize with the stores.
On 14.08.2015 11:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14 August 2015 at 01:37, Andrey Semashev wrote:
1. Is my test valid or is there a flaw that I'm missing?
The cppmem tool at http://svr-pes20-cppmem.cl.cam.ac.uk/cppmem/ shows
that there are consistent executions where (x==0 && y==0) is true. I
use
On 14 August 2015 at 01:37, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> 1. Is my test valid or is there a flaw that I'm missing?
The cppmem tool at http://svr-pes20-cppmem.cl.cam.ac.uk/cppmem/ shows
that there are consistent executions where (x==0 && y==0) is true. I
used this code:
int main() {
atomic_int a = 0;
Hi,
I'm having a problem with one of the Boost.Atomic tests on a PowerPC64
LE test platform. The test is running two threads which are looping code
like this:
Thread 1 Thread 2
[initially a == 0 && b == 0]
a.store(1, seq_cst); b.store(1, seq_cst);
a.load(relaxed);
On 06/26/2015 01:56 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 06/09/2015 10:20 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Because some folks don't want to audit their code to where to add
byteswaps.
I am serious people have legacy big-endian code they want to run little
endi
> Well - they need a full audit anyway to slap those endian attributes on the
> appropriate structures. We are not, after all, introducing a -fbig-endian
> switch.
Sort of though, the Ada compiler has a pragma to tag all record types with an
SSO attribute (although I personally don't like it muc
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/09/2015 10:20 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>>
>>> Because some folks don't want to audit their code to where to add
>>> byteswaps.
>>> I am serious people have legacy big-endian code they want to run little
>>> endian. There is a reason this is
On 06/09/2015 10:20 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Because some folks don't want to audit their code to where to add byteswaps.
I am serious people have legacy big-endian code they want to run little
endian. There is a reason this is around in the first place. Developers are
lazy.
That's a little rou
On 06/09/2015 04:52 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
What's the reason to not expose the byte swapping operations earlier, like
on GIMPLE? (or even on GENERIC?)
That would be too heavy, every load and store in GENERIC/GIMPLE would have an
associ
t;a=shortlog;h=refs/remotes/scalar-storage-order
Thanks. And thanks to some people on irc for explaining how to find this
myself. So for others who might miss branches or don't know how to get
them in their git copy.
- https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/branches/ only lists some of the
branches. Ther
> Because some folks don't want to audit their code to where to add byteswaps.
> I am serious people have legacy big-endian code they want to run little
> endian. There is a reason this is around in the first place. Developers are
> lazy.
That's a little rough, but essentially correct in our exper
> Why would you want to support this on bitfields ... (/me runs away).
This was the only supported case in the original specification. :-)
--
Eric Botcazou
> On Jun 9, 2015, at 7:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> Yes, but I'd expect them to be optimized away (well, hopefully).
>>
>> OK, but you cannot reasonably expose everything in GENERIC/GIMPLE, for
>> example
>> the mask-and-shift op
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Yes, but I'd expect them to be optimized away (well, hopefully).
>
> OK, but you cannot reasonably expose everything in GENERIC/GIMPLE, for example
> the mask-and-shift operations to extract bitfields in reverse SSO, only the
> RTL expander h
> Yes, but I'd expect them to be optimized away (well, hopefully).
OK, but you cannot reasonably expose everything in GENERIC/GIMPLE, for example
the mask-and-shift operations to extract bitfields in reverse SSO, only the
RTL expander has the (quite complex) logic and I doubt you want to teach t
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> What's the reason to not expose the byte swapping operations earlier, like
>> on GIMPLE? (or even on GENERIC?)
>
> That would be too heavy, every load and store in GENERIC/GIMPLE would have an
> associated byte swapping operation, although
't it?
For the C family of languages where array types are not first-class citizens,
the SSO attribute simply cannot be supported on array types. But for other
languages, like Ada, where they are, it can and it is supported on the branch,
so you can declare an array of 4 integers with bi
> What's the reason to not expose the byte swapping operations earlier, like
> on GIMPLE? (or even on GENERIC?)
That would be too heavy, every load and store in GENERIC/GIMPLE would have an
associated byte swapping operation, although you don't know if they will be
needed in the end. For examp
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 12:17:49PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> > How is this represented in DWARF?
>>
>> This is not represented on the branch, because this cannot be done in pure
>> DWARF. DW_AT_endianity only applies to base types or st
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 12:17:49PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > How is this represented in DWARF?
>
> This is not represented on the branch, because this cannot be done in pure
> DWARF. DW_AT_endianity only applies to base types or stand-alone objects and
> we would need it for DW_TAG_member
> How is this represented in DWARF?
This is not represented on the branch, because this cannot be done in pure
DWARF. DW_AT_endianity only applies to base types or stand-alone objects and
we would need it for DW_TAG_member (and even DW_TAG_array_type in Ada). But
this could easily be implemen
> Oh and I see a case where we want to remove byteswaps at IPA level. If
> we can see the variable value does not escape.
That should be relatively easily doable, although I'm a little skeptical of
its practical usefulness.
--
Eric Botcazou
Mark Wielaard writes:
> I am sorry, I normally use the git mirror and this branch doesn't seem
> to be there and I don't know how to get the svn branch.
http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/remotes/scalar-storage-order
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sc
On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 10:05 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> It implements an attribute (C/C++/Ada only) that makes it possible to specify
> the storage order (aka endianness) of scalar components of aggregate types;
> for example, you can declare a structure with big-endian SSO contai
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to propose merging the scalar-storage-order branch that I have been
> maintaining for a couple of years into mainline. Original announcement at:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-05/msg00249.html
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to propose merging the scalar-storage-order branch that I have been
>> maintaining for a couple of years into mainline. Orig
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to propose merging the scalar-storage-order branch that I have been
> maintaining for a couple of years into mainline. Original announcement at:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-05/msg00249.html
Hi,
I'd like to propose merging the scalar-storage-order branch that I have been
maintaining for a couple of years into mainline. Original announcement at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-05/msg00249.html
It implements an attribute (C/C++/Ada only) that makes it possible to specify
insns, can I use INSN_LUID
> safely for this purpose?
I0 is before I1 is before I2 is before I3; one of the first things
try_combine does is make sure this is true (by swapping the names
around if necessary).
The LUIDs are in strictly increasing order, and they stay that way:
combine never mo
Hi,
I am looking into distribute_notes, one reason why it's complicated is
the live range of register noted by REG_DEAD could be both shrunk or
extended. When live range shrinks, we need to search backwards to
find previous reference and mark it as REG_DEAD (or delete the
definition if there is no
On 29 April 2014 16:25, Yaron Dayagi wrote:
> Hello,
> In gcc 4.4.6 we had no problem with the order of initialization.
> In gcc 4.7.2 we do have a problem.
> A CPP file defined GlobalObj_1 (declared extern in the H file):
> CMyClass GlobalObj_1.
> Another CPP file declared
Hello,
In gcc 4.4.6 we had no problem with the order of initialization.
In gcc 4.7.2 we do have a problem.
A CPP file defined GlobalObj_1 (declared extern in the H file):
CMyClass GlobalObj_1.
Another CPP file declared GlobalObj_2 (also declared extern in the H
file).= The CPP file used copy
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Martin Uecker
wrote:
> Am Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:44:53 +0100
> schrieb Richard Biener :
>
>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Martin Uecker
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi list,
>> >
>> > the strings in the ".d
Am Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:44:53 +0100
schrieb Richard Biener :
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Martin Uecker
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi list,
> >
> > the strings in the ".debug_str" section are output
> > in an arbitrary order. Could this be changed?
>
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> the strings in the ".debug_str" section are output
> in an arbitrary order. Could this be changed?
>
> The function 'output_indirect_strings' in 'gcc/dwarf2out.c'
> u
Hi list,
the strings in the ".debug_str" section are output
in an arbitrary order. Could this be changed?
The function 'output_indirect_strings' in 'gcc/dwarf2out.c'
uses htab_traverse which then outputs the string in the
order they appear in the hash table. Instea
Sir/Madam
PRODUCT INQUIRY LETTER
Our company is interested in your product that we saw in trading site Please
quote us the following to enable us submit our Purchasing order immediately.
1.The minimum Order Quantity
2.Delivery time
3.The payment term and other terms and
s indeed extended (one flag on aggregate types and one flag on
some _REF nodes) by using the following guidelines (quoting tree.h):
The overall strategy is to preserve the invariant that every scalar in
memory is associated with a single storage order, i.e. all accesses to
this scalar
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just created a new branch off the trunk named scalar-storage-order to
> host the (experimental) support to specify a reverse storage order (byte/word
> order, aka endianness) for scalar components of aggrega
Hi,
I have just created a new branch off the trunk named scalar-storage-order to
host the (experimental) support to specify a reverse storage order (byte/word
order, aka endianness) for scalar components of aggregate types.
I will be maintaining the branch and start by porting AdaCore'
Hello Sales,
Greetings from Gonapa Bond Ltd. Introduction, I am Jeffrey Goodman the founder
of the above named company here in Cook Islands. We are making inquiry if you
ship
internationally but specifically to our location here in Cook Islands.
In addition, we would like to know if you ac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am trying to compile the cactuscode package and can not get past the
error :
Statement order error: declaration after DATA
can you point me in the direction of a fix. I included offending file
as an attachment.
Dave
kb9qhd Amateur Radio
On 9/11/2012 5:46 PM, David N. Bradley wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am trying to compile the cactuscode package and can not get past the
error :
Statement order error: declaration after DATA
can you point me in the direction of a fix. I included offending file
as
David N. Bradley wrote:
I am trying to compile the cactuscode package and can not get past the
error :
Statement order error: declaration after DATA
Somehow the whole is very odd.
a) I tried your program with gfortran 4.1 to 4.8, g95 and g77 - and none
of them prints this error - all
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am trying to compile the cactuscode package and can not get past the
error :
Statement order error: declaration after DATA
can you point me in the direction of a fix. I included offending file
as an attachment.
Dave
kb9qhd Amateur Radio
t; Other target-patches exposed this for me.
> > I have on the 4.7-branch an insn:
> >
> > (jump_insn 245 277 246 (set (pc)
> > (label_ref:SI 312)) whatever.c:511 -1
> > (nil)
> > -> 187)
> >
> > and two (or more) pattern candidates in the
> -> 187)
>
> and two (or more) pattern candidates in the following .md file
> order:
>
> (define_insn "jump"
> [(set (pc)
> (label_ref (match_operand 0 "" "")))]
> ""
> "ba %l0%#"
> [(se
Other target-patches exposed this for me.
I have on the 4.7-branch an insn:
(jump_insn 245 277 246 (set (pc)
(label_ref:SI 312)) whatever.c:511 -1
(nil)
-> 187)
and two (or more) pattern candidates in the following .md file
order:
(define_insn "jump"
> What if the object being constructed has only POD-type members with constant
> initializers but is declared volatile
I don't understand really... but it doesn't matter, I give up.
1 - 100 of 244 matches
Mail list logo
